linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] phy: can-transceiver: Re-instate "mux-states" property presence check

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4c221c24-05c4-4be2-ad9b-e5a58968b5b0@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:48:06 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: linux-can@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
 Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
 Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: can-transceiver: Re-instate "mux-states" property
 presence check

On 19/03/2025 at 23:06, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> For some reasons, I received your message twice (with a two minutes
> interval between both messages). These look identical. I am answering
> the most recent. :)
> 
> On 19/03/2025 at 22:27, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On the Renesas Gray Hawk Single development board:
>>
>>     can-transceiver-phy can-phy0: /can-phy0: failed to get mux-state (0)
>>
>> "mux-states" is an optional property for CAN transceivers.  However,
>> mux_get() always prints an error message in case of an error, including
>> when the property is not present, confusing the user.
> 
> Hmmm, I understand why you are doing this patch. But on the long term,
> wouldn't it make more sense to have a devm_mux_state_get_optional()? Or
> maybe add a property somewhere to inform devm_mux_state_get() that this
> is optional?
> 
> Regardless, just see this as an open question. I am OK with the approach
> of your patch.

Ah, and I just realized that you mentioned the exact same thing under
the --- cutter, which for some reasons my eyes refused to see.

Sorry for the noise.

>> Fix this by re-instating the property presence check.
>>
>> This is bascially a revert of commit d02dfd4ceb2e9f34 ("phy:
>> can-transceiver: Drop unnecessary "mux-states" property presence
>> check"), with two changes:
>>   1. Use the proper API for checking whether a property is present,
>>   2. Do not print an error message, as the mux core already takes care
>>      of that.
>>
>> Fixes: d02dfd4ceb2e9f34 ("phy: can-transceiver: Drop unnecessary "mux-states" property presence check")> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> 
> Notwithstanding of above comment:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol